Right...all you have to do is fill out a warranty claim, package the bulb up, and mail it to CREE (who says they may also require the original receipt - you know, the one you saved and filed as the receipt for the 3rd guest bathroom bulb from the left). Then CREE will send you a replacement (probably in 6-8 weeks) or refund the purchase price (approximately equal to the cost of shipping them your dead bulb).
Companies love providing warranties like this because they know very few people will use them.
So great...they'll charge the merchants 3% just to accept the card. The price of everything will go up 3%, but users of the Apple card will get 2% back. Apple card holders will only be down 1% overall. Poor people without the Apple card will get to bear the brunt of the burden as they won't have access to cash back systems. Will wonders never cease? If you believe a financial services firm is giving away free money I have some collateralized debt obligations to sell you.
Exactly - why does nobody see this? Where do people think all this "cash back" comes from? These companies charge merchants a fair portion of every transaction to accept the card. The merchant doesn't have much choice since cash has been largely eliminated as a purchase medium for anything over $10. If they charge an additional fee for using credit, customers are turned off. Instead, they just mark up the prices on everything to cover the fees they have to give the credit card companies. As a result everything is more expensive. People feel great about their cash back when they could have simply paid less in the first place.
The situation is worse for people who don't qualify for such accounts. They get to pay more for everything without the benefit of cash back. The poor end up paying extra so those who are well off can get a discount on their iPhone.
Is it though? Boeing's primary competitor is Airbus. The WTO has found that Airbus has received around $22B in illegal subsidies. I wonder how those subsidies impact the cost of doing business for Airbus vs Boeing and whether Boeing's irresponsible cost-cutting comes from expense pressures resulting from this difference. There are lots of examples of negative results of capitalism, but I don't really think the aerospace industry is one. Heck, its role in defense for major military powers is such that governments are constantly involved in operations.
Note - This does not excuse Boeing or US regulators in any way. Also note - There are further contentions that the US does the same for Boeing. In which case, the expense pressures might not exist, but the argument that this isn't really "Capitalism at work" remains.
Trex decking material is 95% recycled material (a fair portion from household plastic waste) and it's great. Waste can be used for certain building materials - it just has to go through a lot of processing first. The resulting product is also quite expensive relative to standard material like wood.
As you said, unprocessed materials aren't viable. Sadly, the processed materials are often much more expensive. From what I've read, we're actually getting pretty good at recycling concrete which is a plus. Hopefully we'll see continued development and lower costs in this area over time.
I agree that the X isn't what Apple hoped. I wonder if the problem isn't the price, however, but the fact that people can't easily tell it's an X; thus no dopamine hits from spectators nearby going "hey, is that the new X? Oooohhh." Assuming the owner puts it in a case, it doesn't look substantially different from every other black rectangle you see just about everywhere. There's a reason Luis Vuitton plasters their logo all over everything. There is a segment of people who will pay extra for attention - but they want to be damned sure they get that attention or it isn't money well spent.
For those of us who just enjoy having a nice phone, the reasons to upgrade are fewer and further between. I bought the S8+ to replace an older Galaxy model due to Samsung's statement that the battery could handle significantly more charge cycles without the usual degradation. My phone is approaching 2 years old and, thus far, that holds true. I still make it through the day on a single charge and everything else about the phone (screen, speed, photo quality, etc.) is of high enough quality that I don't see a need to pick up a new phone anytime soon. Honestly, my daughter recently picked up a Motorola G6 for around $200 unlocked. The fit and finish of that phone is top notch and it does everything I need to do reasonably well (sans wireless charging which is a luxury I like). When the S8 finally does give out I may go that route. My ~$900 (at time of purchase) S8+ definitely isn't 4 times the phone that the G6 is.
The Mona Lisa is painted with an oil-based medium. Presumably, that gives it some degree of depth. Moving around in the room with the painting could be quite different than viewing a static image of the painting on a computer monitor. It's possible that peaks and valleys in the paint play tricks with the light and shadows as someone moves around the room. This wouldn't happen on a monitor.
That said, I'd imagine the lighting in the display is such that shadows and the like may not be an issue, but that seems like it's a fairly big assumption to make if one is conducting and publishing a study.
Tell your brother to have fun completely replacing all the braking components when everything finally lets go. My buddy did the same thing on his truck and was driving down the road when his brakes completely failed - pedal to the floor with nothing happening at all. He managed to get things stopped by downshifting and using the mechanical parking brake. He then called me for help fixing things (working on cars and motorcycles is a hobby of mine).
I asked when he last bled his brakes. He replied "what's that?" Brake fluid is hydroscopic and, once it absorbs water, all kinds of fun things happen - most notably that the boiling point of the fluid changes and it becomes corrosive to the internals of the braking components (metal lines, master cylinder, slave cylinders, the metal portions of the lines, etc.). When I finally bled the brakes for him the fluid was full of rust. A quick inspection of the master cylinder showed it was not holding pressure properly. Let's just say that there was a ton of work to do.
All could have been avoided by spending 30 min and $15 every couple of years to bleed the brakes. It's a super easy job and if you do it when changing pads (so your wheels and everything are off already) it adds maybe 10 minutes to the process.
I don't disagree with your comment, but I want to add that the whole idea of a long, old age retirement is new, unnecessary, and (IMO) detrimental to the human condition.
One must wonder, why do people want to live so long? Certainly, most people have an innate desire to "not die" at any given moment, but it seems quite obvious that, at a certain point, death is really the best option - especially when one can think on it a bit and plan it out on their own terms. Of course, the Abrahamic religions have classified ending one's life on their own terms as forbidden. This has translated into societal norms that classify suicide as weak, selfish, "insane," etc. These norms have also made it impossible for a healthy person to easily source humane, on-demand life termination services. Instead, the options with which we're presented are mostly horrifying and, quite frankly unfair to those who must deal with the aftermath. As such, people are pretty much programmed to sit in pain, rotting away until they rattle their last undignified breath.
But, with the religion (thankfully) on the decline, why do we not see movements such as "live life to the fullest while you're healthy?" I mean, we see this to some extent, but it's largely marginalized. Why could that be? I'd venture that it's because two of the largest, most profitable industries in the Western World have the most to gain by drawing out your life as long as possible - your own enjoyment of that life be damned. Those are the investment industry and the health care industry. The investment industry makes truly MASSIVE amounts of money convincing you to "delay your gratification" so you can live well later on. The commissions and management fees in this industry are enormous (financial services vet here) and frequently supported by fear mongering statements like "you don't want to be eating cat food when you're 90." I could go into how this is necessary to support an economy largely built on "imaginary" stock value, but that would make this already long post much longer. Once the financial services firms have milked you of all income earning years it's time for the healthcare and elder care industries to take over. Now you're on 10 medications, are regularly seen by physicians, undergo routine testing, and, eventually, full time care. During that last phase you get all the fun things like $5 pudding cups, and $.10 per minute phone calls. The ideal for everyone in these industries is for you to die once you're completely destitute - not a moment before and certainly not after (unless they can milk your family in some way). Dying on your own terms when you realize your body isn't going to allow you to maintain the quality of life you expect - hell no! Where's the profit in that?
Funny thing is, this whole thing is so new. People only recently adopted this idea that they should work a while and then live, unemployed, for 30 years after. Heck, if they did live well past their working years it was typically with the help and support of their children or other family members.
Fuck all of that. Many of the things I enjoy (such as skiing, hiking, and motorcycle racing) come with a limited window of enjoyment. I'm not going to avoid these now so I can do them when I'm 70. Similarly, I'm not going to wait until my daughter is 30 to take her to Disney World. Sure, I save. I save so I can set my daughter up for success in life. I save so unexpected expenses don't become crises. I save so that I can eventually leave work and have some grand adventures while my body is still willing to cooperate. I don't save so big medicine can hook me up to tubes and suck out all the money I "earned" by not enjoying life while I could. Hopefully the world will someday offer me the chance to decide when physical limitations prevent me from wanting to stick around any longer. Hopefully it will offer a humane way to leave my family and friends with dignity and a bit of extra money to take their own wild rides while they can. Ask yourself: How in the world is this not already an option?
Exactly this. Many cities have a desire to build or further their tunnel infrastructure. The biggest issues with this? First, it's hugely expensive. Second, it's slow. Third, it requires the movement of massive amounts of earth that must be deposited somewhere (often many many miles away).
What Musk is trying to do is demonstrate how modern tech and some creative thinking can make tunnel building both time and cost effective (something I'm sure Boston would have liked during their "big dig" and Seattle could surely use today). Further, as I understand it, the Boring company aims to transform tunnel waste into bricks that can be used in other construction projects - limiting waste and it's transportation while generating income that can be used to help reduce the overall cost of the project.
All these "tunnels aren't new" comments completely miss the point. That's like watching someone 3D print a figurine and saying "figurines aren't new." The point isn't the figurine, but the process used to create it.
I'm a pretty liberal guy and I have a feeling you and I agree on many salient issues, but this is exactly the kind of rhetoric that lead to Trump in office. You could change a few words in your rant and, frankly, it wouldn't sound any different than what spews forth from the mouths of white supremacists. There's no better way to drive conservatives to the polls en masse then by wrapping your political opinions in such vitriol. People like you did more to swing the votes away from your own cause than you'll ever be willing to admit.
I'm not sure what you mean by a substantial number. Interior and exterior panels as well as trim, glass, and parts of the harness are often unique. Most all other parts are shared across a large number of vehicles and manufacturers. Engines, solenoids, alternators, electric motors, switches, ICE, sensors (MAP, MAF, parking, etc.) cameras, wipers, fuel tanks, most suspension components, wheels, tires, fuel pumps, turbos, radiators, heater cores, ac units, batteries, brakes, spark plugs, oil filters, air filters, timing belts and chains, transmissions, and on and on are shared across platforms. In addition, the manufacturer of your vehicle probably fabricated very few of the items on the preceding list - most coming from OEMs like Denso, Bosch, NGK, Alison, Fuji Heavy Industries, Nissin, Autolite, and others. Heck, a number of manufacturers build several cars/light trucks on the exact same or slightly modified chassis.
If you can find the OEM that built the part for your car manufacturer you can, with a little work, often get the same part (without your car brand's logo of course) for a fraction of the price. Dealers hate this, of course, and appear to be willing to make great efforts to tell you doing so will void your warranty.
As you said, there are still a ton of parts that are fairly low volume, but most of the common parts subject to replacement due to wear are available elsewhere already.
This printer took 18 days. A standard crew of people frame a much more complex house in 7. A standard crew probably frames a single story house on a slab foundation (like the one in the article) in 4 days. In terms of time to completion (the number of days until the frame of the home is finished) a standard crew is still dramatically faster. Yes, the tech will progress and will probably be far superior to human builders some day, but that day hasn't come.
In addition, measuring the project in man hours isn't a superior measure. Framers aren't a scarce nor expensive resource. Given that, it would make more sense to use cost. This site indicates that a 3 person framing crew costs about $87 per hour. That said, let's say a 5 person crew runs $150 per hour. http://www.norbord.com/na/blog...
Do you think that this printer costs less than $150 per hour to run (including the running cost, amortized capital cost, and the cost of the person(s) running the equipment)? I doubt it, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt. My 5 person crew can complete a simple house in 4 days at a labor cost of approximately $4800. This machine takes 18 days at a cost of $21,600!
This is like someone saying they can have a group of 5 kids deliver 100 newspapers in 1 hour at a total cost of $15. You then come along and say you can use a person operating a machine to deliver the same 100 newspapers in 4 hours at a cost of $100 then contending you are using less man hours so you currently have the superior solution. It doesn't work out.
So...the tech will get better and will probably make sense eventually, but for now it's research-phase stuff that doesn't make sense to employ on any sort of large scale.
It took the machine 18 days to complete its work. The article was pretty low on information, but it sounds like its work consisted of something roughly equivalent to framing (no electrical, plumbing, insulation, finish work, etc.). A regular crew could frame a 1000 square foot home much faster. I'm seeing things like this on other sites: "On average, crew of three experienced carpenters and two helpers able to complete framing of a new 1,900 ft2 – 2,100 ft2 two story simple house in 7 – 8 days." (rempros.com).
This is cool and all and I'm always glad to see investment in promising new tech, but it doesn't sound like it's any sort of end-all solution to housing problems.
Yes, even this article, which takes a fairly critical view of the deal Amazon has with the USPS, indicates that package delivery is a critical part of keeping the USPS afloat: https://www.thenation.com/arti...
The biggest issue appears to be that infrastructure changes necessary for handling a much higher percentage of packages have not been made. That seems like a USPS duty - not Amazon.
I was really looking forward to Ready Player One as well. I loved the book. It was an amazing tribute to 80's nerd culture. Watching the previews for the movie, however, dampened my excitement. It looks like most of the really nerdy stuff (mastering old school video games, DnD, etc.) has been pulled in favor of swashbuckling adventure scenes tailored to appeal to everyone. The previews may not be representative of the movie as a whole so I'll hold on to hope, but not excitement.
I'm pretty sure that's collusion (unless they all do it completely independently - which is unlikely). Collusion is illegal in the United States. That doesn't seem to stop a number of companies from doing it, but not many are willing do so to cause specific harm to a government body. That's playing with fire.
What you're pointing out is that urban areas are designed to discourage private automobile ownership by individuals - often very intentionally. There isn't really any kind of automobile an auto manufacturer can build to change that. For now, they'll probably focus on development for the (fairly large) suburban market.
That said, autonomous vehicles should eventually be able to make electrics more practical in the cities. These cars won't be owned by individuals, but rather by corporations or local transit authorities. Live in the city, but run into a situation where walking, biking, or busing won't cut it? Just bring up an app, book your travel, and a nice, autonomous, electric vehicle will swing by to pick you up and take you where you need to go. When it's running low on power, it can return to one of several "car barns" designed to hold and charge the vehicles. This environment still provides a great opportunity for auto manufacturers to evolve and make large sums of money.
I know it's a huge hurdle to get many urban folk to give up personal ownership of an automobile, but with things trending away from "I go to X location to get the things I need" and toward "The things I need are delivered to my home" I think there will be less and less need (and therefor less desire) to own cars. This will be furthered as companies (hopefully) continue to expand work-from-home options and eliminate old fashioned dress codes (making commutes on feet, bikes, mopeds easier and more attractive). I feel like the auto makers that will win out in the end will be those that find solutions for shipping/delivery vehicles and shared transportation services.
Random fact...many race tracks require that you run Propylene Glycol or pure water as coolant because crashes are frequent and the resultant coolant leaks aren't toxic (as they would be with standard coolant). I've heard PG is also easier to clean up than standard coolant, but I'm not sure if that's fact or rumor.
You say this because that's your experience. I'm at the track pretty often. Track days around here see a fair number of very high performance cars. Quite a few people who spring for GT3's and 911 turbos (as well as some more exotic brands) take them to the track and drive them like they were built to be driven. Don't assume everybody else's driving habits match your own.
There was always Congressional approval - though sometimes shortly after the beginning of the engagement. You are correct, however, that war was not declared.
My guess is that the company in question is not hiring H1-B workers, but outsourcing their IT department to another company that happens to employ H1-B workers. It's not illegal to outsource.
Think of a company that manufactures jeans and, in doing so, also manufactures rivets and buttons. They decide to have those rivets and buttons manufactured overseas to save money. As part of the outsourcing process, the company sends some US-based foreign workers to learn the button making process and then manage, from the US, the overseas manufacturing process. These employees are H1-B because they were brought, by the overseas manufacturer, to the US. They possess unique skills such as the ability to learn the manufacturing process AND the ability to communicate that process to the overseas plant in the native language of those plant workers. They also are able to manage the process from afar in the native language of the plant while communicating important details to the maker of jeans in English.
This same thing happens in IT - only the manufactured product is software.
I'm commenting on whether this is right or wrong, but just noting that I can see how companies get away with it. IT workers are now dealing with what factory workers dealt with decades ago.
I'm not arguing one way or the other, but I do think your specific point is missing something - you're forgetting that there are more veterans than acting military. This country is chock full of people who know exactly how to fight. The lazy part of your argument probably holds. I wouldn't call it lazy, but I will say that it's tough to risk the lives of you and your family when there is food on your table. I don't think there have been many rebellions by populaces that are warm and full.
Slashdot Mirror
Right...all you have to do is fill out a warranty claim, package the bulb up, and mail it to CREE (who says they may also require the original receipt - you know, the one you saved and filed as the receipt for the 3rd guest bathroom bulb from the left). Then CREE will send you a replacement (probably in 6-8 weeks) or refund the purchase price (approximately equal to the cost of shipping them your dead bulb).
Companies love providing warranties like this because they know very few people will use them.
So great...they'll charge the merchants 3% just to accept the card. The price of everything will go up 3%, but users of the Apple card will get 2% back. Apple card holders will only be down 1% overall. Poor people without the Apple card will get to bear the brunt of the burden as they won't have access to cash back systems. Will wonders never cease? If you believe a financial services firm is giving away free money I have some collateralized debt obligations to sell you.
Exactly - why does nobody see this? Where do people think all this "cash back" comes from? These companies charge merchants a fair portion of every transaction to accept the card. The merchant doesn't have much choice since cash has been largely eliminated as a purchase medium for anything over $10. If they charge an additional fee for using credit, customers are turned off. Instead, they just mark up the prices on everything to cover the fees they have to give the credit card companies. As a result everything is more expensive. People feel great about their cash back when they could have simply paid less in the first place.
The situation is worse for people who don't qualify for such accounts. They get to pay more for everything without the benefit of cash back. The poor end up paying extra so those who are well off can get a discount on their iPhone.
Is it though? Boeing's primary competitor is Airbus. The WTO has found that Airbus has received around $22B in illegal subsidies. I wonder how those subsidies impact the cost of doing business for Airbus vs Boeing and whether Boeing's irresponsible cost-cutting comes from expense pressures resulting from this difference. There are lots of examples of negative results of capitalism, but I don't really think the aerospace industry is one. Heck, its role in defense for major military powers is such that governments are constantly involved in operations.
Note - This does not excuse Boeing or US regulators in any way.
Also note - There are further contentions that the US does the same for Boeing. In which case, the expense pressures might not exist, but the argument that this isn't really "Capitalism at work" remains.
Trex decking material is 95% recycled material (a fair portion from household plastic waste) and it's great. Waste can be used for certain building materials - it just has to go through a lot of processing first. The resulting product is also quite expensive relative to standard material like wood.
As you said, unprocessed materials aren't viable. Sadly, the processed materials are often much more expensive. From what I've read, we're actually getting pretty good at recycling concrete which is a plus. Hopefully we'll see continued development and lower costs in this area over time.
I agree that the X isn't what Apple hoped. I wonder if the problem isn't the price, however, but the fact that people can't easily tell it's an X; thus no dopamine hits from spectators nearby going "hey, is that the new X? Oooohhh." Assuming the owner puts it in a case, it doesn't look substantially different from every other black rectangle you see just about everywhere. There's a reason Luis Vuitton plasters their logo all over everything. There is a segment of people who will pay extra for attention - but they want to be damned sure they get that attention or it isn't money well spent.
For those of us who just enjoy having a nice phone, the reasons to upgrade are fewer and further between. I bought the S8+ to replace an older Galaxy model due to Samsung's statement that the battery could handle significantly more charge cycles without the usual degradation. My phone is approaching 2 years old and, thus far, that holds true. I still make it through the day on a single charge and everything else about the phone (screen, speed, photo quality, etc.) is of high enough quality that I don't see a need to pick up a new phone anytime soon. Honestly, my daughter recently picked up a Motorola G6 for around $200 unlocked. The fit and finish of that phone is top notch and it does everything I need to do reasonably well (sans wireless charging which is a luxury I like). When the S8 finally does give out I may go that route. My ~$900 (at time of purchase) S8+ definitely isn't 4 times the phone that the G6 is.
The Mona Lisa is painted with an oil-based medium. Presumably, that gives it some degree of depth. Moving around in the room with the painting could be quite different than viewing a static image of the painting on a computer monitor. It's possible that peaks and valleys in the paint play tricks with the light and shadows as someone moves around the room. This wouldn't happen on a monitor.
That said, I'd imagine the lighting in the display is such that shadows and the like may not be an issue, but that seems like it's a fairly big assumption to make if one is conducting and publishing a study.
Tell your brother to have fun completely replacing all the braking components when everything finally lets go. My buddy did the same thing on his truck and was driving down the road when his brakes completely failed - pedal to the floor with nothing happening at all. He managed to get things stopped by downshifting and using the mechanical parking brake. He then called me for help fixing things (working on cars and motorcycles is a hobby of mine).
I asked when he last bled his brakes. He replied "what's that?" Brake fluid is hydroscopic and, once it absorbs water, all kinds of fun things happen - most notably that the boiling point of the fluid changes and it becomes corrosive to the internals of the braking components (metal lines, master cylinder, slave cylinders, the metal portions of the lines, etc.). When I finally bled the brakes for him the fluid was full of rust. A quick inspection of the master cylinder showed it was not holding pressure properly. Let's just say that there was a ton of work to do.
All could have been avoided by spending 30 min and $15 every couple of years to bleed the brakes. It's a super easy job and if you do it when changing pads (so your wheels and everything are off already) it adds maybe 10 minutes to the process.
I don't disagree with your comment, but I want to add that the whole idea of a long, old age retirement is new, unnecessary, and (IMO) detrimental to the human condition.
One must wonder, why do people want to live so long? Certainly, most people have an innate desire to "not die" at any given moment, but it seems quite obvious that, at a certain point, death is really the best option - especially when one can think on it a bit and plan it out on their own terms. Of course, the Abrahamic religions have classified ending one's life on their own terms as forbidden. This has translated into societal norms that classify suicide as weak, selfish, "insane," etc. These norms have also made it impossible for a healthy person to easily source humane, on-demand life termination services. Instead, the options with which we're presented are mostly horrifying and, quite frankly unfair to those who must deal with the aftermath. As such, people are pretty much programmed to sit in pain, rotting away until they rattle their last undignified breath.
But, with the religion (thankfully) on the decline, why do we not see movements such as "live life to the fullest while you're healthy?" I mean, we see this to some extent, but it's largely marginalized. Why could that be? I'd venture that it's because two of the largest, most profitable industries in the Western World have the most to gain by drawing out your life as long as possible - your own enjoyment of that life be damned. Those are the investment industry and the health care industry. The investment industry makes truly MASSIVE amounts of money convincing you to "delay your gratification" so you can live well later on. The commissions and management fees in this industry are enormous (financial services vet here) and frequently supported by fear mongering statements like "you don't want to be eating cat food when you're 90." I could go into how this is necessary to support an economy largely built on "imaginary" stock value, but that would make this already long post much longer. Once the financial services firms have milked you of all income earning years it's time for the healthcare and elder care industries to take over. Now you're on 10 medications, are regularly seen by physicians, undergo routine testing, and, eventually, full time care. During that last phase you get all the fun things like $5 pudding cups, and $.10 per minute phone calls. The ideal for everyone in these industries is for you to die once you're completely destitute - not a moment before and certainly not after (unless they can milk your family in some way). Dying on your own terms when you realize your body isn't going to allow you to maintain the quality of life you expect - hell no! Where's the profit in that?
Funny thing is, this whole thing is so new. People only recently adopted this idea that they should work a while and then live, unemployed, for 30 years after. Heck, if they did live well past their working years it was typically with the help and support of their children or other family members.
Fuck all of that. Many of the things I enjoy (such as skiing, hiking, and motorcycle racing) come with a limited window of enjoyment. I'm not going to avoid these now so I can do them when I'm 70. Similarly, I'm not going to wait until my daughter is 30 to take her to Disney World. Sure, I save. I save so I can set my daughter up for success in life. I save so unexpected expenses don't become crises. I save so that I can eventually leave work and have some grand adventures while my body is still willing to cooperate. I don't save so big medicine can hook me up to tubes and suck out all the money I "earned" by not enjoying life while I could. Hopefully the world will someday offer me the chance to decide when physical limitations prevent me from wanting to stick around any longer. Hopefully it will offer a humane way to leave my family and friends with dignity and a bit of extra money to take their own wild rides while they can. Ask yourself: How in the world is this not already an option?
Exactly this. Many cities have a desire to build or further their tunnel infrastructure. The biggest issues with this? First, it's hugely expensive. Second, it's slow. Third, it requires the movement of massive amounts of earth that must be deposited somewhere (often many many miles away).
What Musk is trying to do is demonstrate how modern tech and some creative thinking can make tunnel building both time and cost effective (something I'm sure Boston would have liked during their "big dig" and Seattle could surely use today). Further, as I understand it, the Boring company aims to transform tunnel waste into bricks that can be used in other construction projects - limiting waste and it's transportation while generating income that can be used to help reduce the overall cost of the project.
All these "tunnels aren't new" comments completely miss the point. That's like watching someone 3D print a figurine and saying "figurines aren't new." The point isn't the figurine, but the process used to create it.
I'm a pretty liberal guy and I have a feeling you and I agree on many salient issues, but this is exactly the kind of rhetoric that lead to Trump in office. You could change a few words in your rant and, frankly, it wouldn't sound any different than what spews forth from the mouths of white supremacists. There's no better way to drive conservatives to the polls en masse then by wrapping your political opinions in such vitriol. People like you did more to swing the votes away from your own cause than you'll ever be willing to admit.
Everyone who listens has a maximum of 1 year left after hearing.
I'm not sure what you mean by a substantial number. Interior and exterior panels as well as trim, glass, and parts of the harness are often unique. Most all other parts are shared across a large number of vehicles and manufacturers. Engines, solenoids, alternators, electric motors, switches, ICE, sensors (MAP, MAF, parking, etc.) cameras, wipers, fuel tanks, most suspension components, wheels, tires, fuel pumps, turbos, radiators, heater cores, ac units, batteries, brakes, spark plugs, oil filters, air filters, timing belts and chains, transmissions, and on and on are shared across platforms. In addition, the manufacturer of your vehicle probably fabricated very few of the items on the preceding list - most coming from OEMs like Denso, Bosch, NGK, Alison, Fuji Heavy Industries, Nissin, Autolite, and others. Heck, a number of manufacturers build several cars/light trucks on the exact same or slightly modified chassis.
If you can find the OEM that built the part for your car manufacturer you can, with a little work, often get the same part (without your car brand's logo of course) for a fraction of the price. Dealers hate this, of course, and appear to be willing to make great efforts to tell you doing so will void your warranty.
As you said, there are still a ton of parts that are fairly low volume, but most of the common parts subject to replacement due to wear are available elsewhere already.
This printer took 18 days. A standard crew of people frame a much more complex house in 7. A standard crew probably frames a single story house on a slab foundation (like the one in the article) in 4 days. In terms of time to completion (the number of days until the frame of the home is finished) a standard crew is still dramatically faster. Yes, the tech will progress and will probably be far superior to human builders some day, but that day hasn't come.
In addition, measuring the project in man hours isn't a superior measure. Framers aren't a scarce nor expensive resource. Given that, it would make more sense to use cost. This site indicates that a 3 person framing crew costs about $87 per hour. That said, let's say a 5 person crew runs $150 per hour.
http://www.norbord.com/na/blog...
Do you think that this printer costs less than $150 per hour to run (including the running cost, amortized capital cost, and the cost of the person(s) running the equipment)? I doubt it, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt. My 5 person crew can complete a simple house in 4 days at a labor cost of approximately $4800. This machine takes 18 days at a cost of $21,600!
This is like someone saying they can have a group of 5 kids deliver 100 newspapers in 1 hour at a total cost of $15. You then come along and say you can use a person operating a machine to deliver the same 100 newspapers in 4 hours at a cost of $100 then contending you are using less man hours so you currently have the superior solution. It doesn't work out.
So...the tech will get better and will probably make sense eventually, but for now it's research-phase stuff that doesn't make sense to employ on any sort of large scale.
It took the machine 18 days to complete its work. The article was pretty low on information, but it sounds like its work consisted of something roughly equivalent to framing (no electrical, plumbing, insulation, finish work, etc.). A regular crew could frame a 1000 square foot home much faster. I'm seeing things like this on other sites: "On average, crew of three experienced carpenters and two helpers able to complete framing of a new 1,900 ft2 – 2,100 ft2 two story simple house in 7 – 8 days." (rempros.com).
This is cool and all and I'm always glad to see investment in promising new tech, but it doesn't sound like it's any sort of end-all solution to housing problems.
Yes, even this article, which takes a fairly critical view of the deal Amazon has with the USPS, indicates that package delivery is a critical part of keeping the USPS afloat:
https://www.thenation.com/arti...
The biggest issue appears to be that infrastructure changes necessary for handling a much higher percentage of packages have not been made. That seems like a USPS duty - not Amazon.
I was really looking forward to Ready Player One as well. I loved the book. It was an amazing tribute to 80's nerd culture. Watching the previews for the movie, however, dampened my excitement. It looks like most of the really nerdy stuff (mastering old school video games, DnD, etc.) has been pulled in favor of swashbuckling adventure scenes tailored to appeal to everyone. The previews may not be representative of the movie as a whole so I'll hold on to hope, but not excitement.
I'm pretty sure that's collusion (unless they all do it completely independently - which is unlikely). Collusion is illegal in the United States. That doesn't seem to stop a number of companies from doing it, but not many are willing do so to cause specific harm to a government body. That's playing with fire.
What you're pointing out is that urban areas are designed to discourage private automobile ownership by individuals - often very intentionally. There isn't really any kind of automobile an auto manufacturer can build to change that. For now, they'll probably focus on development for the (fairly large) suburban market.
That said, autonomous vehicles should eventually be able to make electrics more practical in the cities. These cars won't be owned by individuals, but rather by corporations or local transit authorities. Live in the city, but run into a situation where walking, biking, or busing won't cut it? Just bring up an app, book your travel, and a nice, autonomous, electric vehicle will swing by to pick you up and take you where you need to go. When it's running low on power, it can return to one of several "car barns" designed to hold and charge the vehicles. This environment still provides a great opportunity for auto manufacturers to evolve and make large sums of money.
I know it's a huge hurdle to get many urban folk to give up personal ownership of an automobile, but with things trending away from "I go to X location to get the things I need" and toward "The things I need are delivered to my home" I think there will be less and less need (and therefor less desire) to own cars. This will be furthered as companies (hopefully) continue to expand work-from-home options and eliminate old fashioned dress codes (making commutes on feet, bikes, mopeds easier and more attractive). I feel like the auto makers that will win out in the end will be those that find solutions for shipping/delivery vehicles and shared transportation services.
Random fact...many race tracks require that you run Propylene Glycol or pure water as coolant because crashes are frequent and the resultant coolant leaks aren't toxic (as they would be with standard coolant). I've heard PG is also easier to clean up than standard coolant, but I'm not sure if that's fact or rumor.
Oatmeal Cookie would be a decent, "non-trademark" name.
You say this because that's your experience. I'm at the track pretty often. Track days around here see a fair number of very high performance cars. Quite a few people who spring for GT3's and 911 turbos (as well as some more exotic brands) take them to the track and drive them like they were built to be driven. Don't assume everybody else's driving habits match your own.
There was always Congressional approval - though sometimes shortly after the beginning of the engagement. You are correct, however, that war was not declared.
My guess is that the company in question is not hiring H1-B workers, but outsourcing their IT department to another company that happens to employ H1-B workers. It's not illegal to outsource.
Think of a company that manufactures jeans and, in doing so, also manufactures rivets and buttons. They decide to have those rivets and buttons manufactured overseas to save money. As part of the outsourcing process, the company sends some US-based foreign workers to learn the button making process and then manage, from the US, the overseas manufacturing process. These employees are H1-B because they were brought, by the overseas manufacturer, to the US. They possess unique skills such as the ability to learn the manufacturing process AND the ability to communicate that process to the overseas plant in the native language of those plant workers. They also are able to manage the process from afar in the native language of the plant while communicating important details to the maker of jeans in English.
This same thing happens in IT - only the manufactured product is software.
I'm commenting on whether this is right or wrong, but just noting that I can see how companies get away with it. IT workers are now dealing with what factory workers dealt with decades ago.
I'm not arguing one way or the other, but I do think your specific point is missing something - you're forgetting that there are more veterans than acting military. This country is chock full of people who know exactly how to fight. The lazy part of your argument probably holds. I wouldn't call it lazy, but I will say that it's tough to risk the lives of you and your family when there is food on your table. I don't think there have been many rebellions by populaces that are warm and full.